Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 DOI 10.1186/s12992-016-0192-6

RESEARCH Open Access ‘Manage and mitigate punitive regulatory measures, enhance the corporate image, influence public policy’: industry efforts to shape understanding of tobacco- attributable deforestation Kelley Lee1*, Natalia Carrillo Botero1 and Thomas Novotny2

Abstract Background: Deforestation due to tobacco farming began to raise concerns in the mid 1970s. Over the next 40 years, tobacco growing increased significantly and shifted markedly to low- and middle-income countries. The percentage of deforestation caused by tobacco farming reached 4 % globally by the early 2000s, although substantially higher in countries such as China (18 %), Zimbabwe (20 %), Malawi (26 %) and Bangladesh (>30 %). Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have argued that tobacco-attributable deforestation is not a serious problem, and that the industry has addressed the issue through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Methods: After reviewing the existing scholarly literature on tobacco and deforestation, we analysed industry sources of public information to understand how the industry framed deforestation, its key causes, and policy responses. To analyse industry strategies between the 1970s and early 2000s to shape understanding of deforestation caused by tobacco farming and curing, the Truth Tobacco Documents Library was systematically searched. The above sources were compiled and triangulated, thematically and chronologically, to derive a narrative of how the industry has framed the problem of, and solutions to, tobacco-attributable deforestation. Results: The industry sought to undermine responses to tobacco-attributable deforestation by emphasising the economic benefits of production in LMICs, blaming alternative causes, and claiming successful forestation efforts. To support these tactics, the industry lobbied at the national and international levels, commissioned research, and colluded through front groups. There was a lack of effective action to address tobacco- attributable deforestation, and indeed an escalation of the problem, during this period. (Continued on next page)

* Correspondence: [email protected] 1Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 2 of 12

(Continued from previous page) Conclusions: The findings suggest the need for independent data on the varied environmental impacts of the tobacco industry, awareness of how the industry seeks to work with environmental researchers and groups to further its interests, and increased scrutiny of tobacco industry efforts to influence environmental policy. Keywords: Tobacco industry, Leaf farming, Deforestation, Policy influence, Corporate social responsibility

Introduction This paper argues that there is a need to locate indus- Deforestation is the process whereby natural forests try claims within a fuller account of the deforestation are cleared through logging and/or burning, either to problem, and how the tobacco industry has sought to usethetimberortheareaforalternativeuses[1]. shape environmental research and policy debates from Around 1.5 billion hectares of forests, mainly tropical the 1970s to early 2000s. While tactics used by the forests, have been lost since the 1970s [2], causing up tobacco industry to influence health policy are well- to 30 % of greenhouse gas emissions annually [3]. To- documented [16], there has been limited analysis of its bacco farming and curing constitute a “proximate efforts to influence environmental policy. Bringing to- cause” of deforestation due to forest removal for agri- gether how the industry has publicly framed deforest- cultural land, soil nutrient depletion and wood fuel ation, with internal industry documents, this paper usage [4]. Concerns about tobacco-attributable defor- describes the tactics used by the industry to shape the estation began to be raised in the mid 1970s [5], definition of, and policy responses to, the problem of spurred by a 128 % increase in production in low- tobacco-attributable deforestation. The findings raise and middle-income countries (LMICs) [6], and 40 % questions about the tobacco industry’sfullimpactson increase globally from 1971 to 1997 [7]. Geist [8] the environment, and its efforts to engage with envir- (p. 18) estimated that, during the mid 1980s, “Virginia onmental researchers and groups through its CSR (flue-cured) tobacco consume[d] between 82.5 and activities. 175 million cubic metres of roundwood harvested worldwide each year for curing…the equivalent of Background 1.2–2.5 million hectares of open forests or woodlands Large-scale commercial tobacco farming dates from the removed annually”. However, the problem continued seventeenth century when expanding European demand unabated. Available data suggests tobacco caused 4 % led to the establishment of plantations in the Americas of deforestation globally [9], but was a significant worked by African slaves. Over the next four centuries cause of deforestation in selected LMICs such as booming demand, and the ability of the plant to grow in China (18 %) [8], Zimbabwe (20 %) [10], Malawi most environments, saw tobacco farming spread world- (26 %) [11] and Bangladesh (>30 %) [12]. wide [17]. Tobacco production comprises three sectors: The tobacco industry has claimed for decades that growing and curing, leaf processing and manufacturing. concerns about tobacco-attributable deforestation are The first is the responsibility of farmers who must deal based on misperception and myths, and it has been a with the “preparation of farms, nursery establishment, minor cause of the problem. The industry has also planting, farm/crop management, harvesting, curing, been involved in mitigating activities in LMICs, not- sorting and leaf grading, and transportation from their ably tree planting (forestation), development of more homes to leaf buying centres” [18] (p. 5). Leaf processing efficient curing methods, and alternative fuels. By the is dominated by large transnational companies, led by late 1990s, these efforts formed a core part of the Universal Leaf and Alliance One, and their subsidiaries. corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives of sev- Some large manufacturers also operate in tobacco eral transnational tobacco companies (TTCs). Today, growing countries and purchase leaf directly from TTCs claim that tobacco-attributable deforestation is farmers. In both cases, it is common that loans and being effectively addressed. In 2015, for instance, Brit- other inputs (e.g. seeds, fertilizers) are provided to ish American Tobacco (BAT) reported the planting of farmers under contract by the leaf purchaser up front, over 170 million trees, and 94.8 % of wood used for who then purchases the ready-cured leaf at a pre curing by its contracted farmers not coming from agreed price. natural forests [13]. Philip Morris International (PMI) Leaf farming has shifted to LMICs since the 1960s, for described its replenishing of forests and improving of both domestic consumption and a cash crop, reaching wood use efficiency [14], while Imperial Tobacco [15] 90 % of world production by 2008 [19]. In 2015 tobacco argues that its partnerships are “helping farmers to was grown on 4.3 million hectares in 124 countries, pro- become self-sufficient in wood”. ducing 7.5 million tonnes of leaf [20]. Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 3 of 12

Given the above business model, hundreds of thou- problem, key causes, and industry responses. Materials sands of small farmers in LMICs are now dependent on reviewed include annual reports, company statements, growing and curing tobacco for a global oligopoly of public commentary, and news releases. To identify and processors and manufacturers. In Malawi following inde- analyse industry strategies to shape understanding of de- pendence in 1964, for example, development policies forestation caused by tobacco farming and curing, from favoured tobacco-growing estates, many controlled by the 1970s when concerns began to be raised, the Truth political elites [21]. Production more than quadrupled Tobacco Documents Library was systematically searched from 1961 to 1979 [22] (Table 5.1). By 2004, tobacco between December 2014 and July 2015 using such key- accounted for 70 % of exports [23] (p.274), 13 % of gross words as “*forestation”, “wood”, “fuel”, combined to- domestic product (GDP), and 23 % of total tax base [24]. gether using Boolean terms. A snowball method was In 2009, tobacco employed 40 % of Malawi’s total work- used to identify additional keywords generated from ini- force [25]. Similarly, production more than doubled in tial searches such as names of individuals, organizations, Zimbabwe from 1980 to 1998 [22] (Chapter 7), with projects and countries. The timeframe for this analysis is small-scale tobacco farms producing 50 % of agricultural limited by currently available documents which largely exports, 30 % of total exports and 10 % of gross domes- date to the early 2000s. The above sources were com- tic product by 2003. In the Urambo district of Tanzania, piled and triangulated, thematically and chronologically, 90 % of households surveyed were farmers who to derive a narrative of the industry strategy and activ- depended on crop production as the sole source of in- ities related to deforestation. come, with 75 % of these farmers regular tobacco growers [26]. Results Importantly, the control of leaf supply through the “Our significant common interests”: claiming economic contract system has led to “[s]teered overproduction…to solidarity with tobacco farmers in the developing world keep tobacco leaf prices low at the farm gate to the dis- Tobacco-attributable deforestation first raised inter- advantage of the tobacco farmers” [18] (p.7). Global leaf national concern at the 1979 World Conference on Smok- production increased between 1970 and 1998 by almost ing and Health [27]. Attention was drawn by World 50 % [18] (p.7), while the real price of flue-cured leaf per Health Organization [WHO] [28] to a study [29] reporting tonne fell by 37 % from 1985 to 2000 [23] (p.274). As that woodfuel curing requires one tree per 300 cigarettes. Otañez et al. write, the structure of leaf production To counter these concerns, the industry initiated a “pro- “restrict[s] competition, depress tobacco prices for active strategy” against “WHO’s propagandist views” fo- Malawi’s farmers and contribute to poverty in Malawi, cusing on “common interests” between the industry and while keeping the country dependent on tobacco grow- farmers [30]. This initially focused on the industry-funded ing” [25] (p.261). Alongside the impoverishment of front group, International Committee on Tobacco Issues smallholder farmers, and dependence of leaf exporting (ICOSI), later renamed the International Tobacco Infor- countries on an increasingly globalized tobacco industry, mation Centre (INFOTAB), which commissioned the overproduction of tobacco leaf has created environmen- Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) to undertake “in-depth tal impacts in the form of large-scale forest removal, soil studies…in Brazil, Costa Rica, Nigeria, India and Malaysia” nutrient depletion, heavy use of pesticides and chemi- [31] (p. 1). The resultant report, Leaf tobacco - its contri- cals, and intensive water and wood fuel usage [4]. It is in bution to the economic and social development of the this context that the tobacco industry’s efforts to shape Third World, then underpinned a “plan of action”,over- understanding of deforestation, caused by tobacco farm- seen by a newly created ICOSI Developing Countries ing and curing since the 1970s, and the potential solu- Group, to alert governments and “provoke reaction in the tions can be located. Third World” [32]. TTCs were instructed by ICOSI to en- sure “as many copies as possible reach people of influence Methods in government departments and the media” [33] (p. 1). We began by reviewing the existing scholarly literature BAT informed its Territorial Coordinators, for example, to understand how environmental scientists see the that the “TAC [Tobacco Advisory Council, the British problem of tobacco-attributable deforestation. We tobacco industry trade and lobbying group], [BAT] searched the Environment Complete database using the Public Affairs Department and other UK manufac- keywords “tobacco” and “*forestation”. We then exam- turers will be giving out a number of copies to influ- ined company websites, reports, and industry publica- ential people in Government and the media here in the tions (e.g. Tobacco Journal International, Tobacco UK” [31] (p. 1). BAT described the report as providing “in- Reporter) to identify how the industry has publicly formation not only to demonstrate the economic and so- framed the deforestation issue. Of particular interest cial value of tobacco, but…to refute ill-considered WHO were industry views put forth on the impacts of the policies damaging to the interests of developing countries” Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 4 of 12

[30]. ICOSI also considered ways “of ensuring that the EIU and Reading studies, facilitated by former UN offi- World Bank, IMF [International Monetary Fund] and cial turned industry consultant Niki Hauser. According Western Countries’ Overseas Development Ministers are to Mercer, the industry “knew that the World Health fully aware of” the report [32] (p. 15). Organisation exerted…a significant pressure on FAO to At the same time, industry involvement in the research support its anti-smoking campaigns” [39] (p.3). In a draft was intentionally played down: “In accordance with speech to ministers of agriculture, he described his ICOSI policy, a low profile approach would be necessary, strategy: probably through third parties” [32] (p. 15). ICOSI Secretary General Julian Doyle described how questions We believed that the Permanent Representatives of regarding independence were to be handled: tobacco growing countries would have strong feelings in defence of their tobacco industry in view of the the industry provided support in terms of local liaison valuable social and economic benefits which it brings facilities and certain financial assistance. “The industry” to their countries and that they might discuss the in that context was the member companies of ICOSI presentation with their ministers [39] (p. 3). and, if questioned on their role, they will be stating that they commissioned the study. I believe that this study, As part of ‘Project Hauser’ [40] McInerney presented undertaken by a research organization second to none his findings in May 1983, comprising one of “two separ- in international reputation for objective high quality ate and independent studies” [41] (p.2), to “senior mem- work, will provide valid evidence of the industry’s very bers of the FAO and…selected delegates to the FAO real contribution to economic and social development from developing countries”.1 The presentation stressed in the Third World. [34] (pp. 1–2) the “significant interests to the economy” from “small farmer” employment, export profits, import substitution The public relations firm Hill and Knowlton also rec- and tax revenues. The studies were cited as evidence of ommended that the “independence” of the report be BAT emphasized: “The EIU Study offers the best - yet inde- pendent evidence that tobacco growing is of great bene- playing a positive and substantial role in developing fit and financial importance to underdeveloped regions agricultural skills and experience in the developing of the world” [35]. world. In almost every country in which tobacco is Building on the 1980 report, and ahead of the 1983 grown and in which BAT has a presence, there is World Conference on Smoking and Health, INFOTAB close co-operation and partnership between BAT commissioned The Role of Tobacco and Comparable companies and governments, the farmers and local Cash Crops in Rural Development in Selected Low communities. [42] (p.6) Income Countries by J.P. McInerney at the Centre for Agricultural Strategy, University of Reading. The pur- Dissemination of the studies coincided with the 1983 pose of the review was “to establish the economic con- World Conference on Smoking and Health where indus- tribution of….tobacco and its alternatives in the farming try delegates reported “the anti-smoking movement had systems of small producers with the implications for in- come of age” and “many more third world delegates come, employment and other parameters of rural devel- were present” [43]. The conference addressed “the eco- opment” [36]. Head of BAT Public Affairs Department nomic theme…in Third World countries”, including a Robert Ely wrote to colleagues that “Dr Burley and Mr S presentation by John Madeley on deforestation in Kenya Rossides of EIU were mentioned as contacts for the caused by tobacco farming [44]. It was reported that the Reading team should they wish to get in touch. A full paper “created a wave of concern in the international to- copy of the EIU 1979 Paper would be sent to the Read- bacco control community” [45] (p. 191), and elicited a ing team together with any other material including eco- recommendation by delegates that “U.N. agencies must nomic impact studies which might be available” [37]. cease supporting tobacco growing and examine deforest- PM President Hamish Maxwell described the Reading ation problem” [46]. study as a way of extending the industry’s “circle of Despite these growing concerns, however, “a 10-year allies” to “new constituencies”, advising that “[w]e must drought of information on…deforestation caused by continue to build up in the professional literature a res- tobacco growing and curing in developing countries” ervoir of credible articles like his which the industry can ensued, according to Tobacco Control editor Simon cite in defense of tobacco as a major contributor to Chapman [45] (p. 191), during which industry lobby- cash-crop economies” [38] (pp. 12–15). ing at FAO continued. The industry pointed to the The industry began to lobby officials at the Food and “lack of research” by tobacco control advocates, and Agriculture Organization (FAO) soon after, using the criticised WHO’s “emotional and contradictory…attacks” Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 5 of 12

[47]. Internally, meanwhile, the industry resisted Upon submitting this draft, Fraser wrote that “the McInerney’s proposal to follow up the desk review with a major part” of his report was “complete,” barring “a “properly structured field survey work in key cash crop short concluding section and bibliography…and possibly areas…[with] statistically based results (rather than just some editorial improvements” [56]. anecdotal evidence)” [48]. Ely responded he was “not sure However, Fraser’s findings immediately raised con- that there would be too much to be gained from it” [49]. cerns among BAT senior staff. Fraser’s “desk research” Instead, industry efforts were channeled into the [57] was considered to contain “data conflicting sharply development of a “‘pro-active’ EIU follow up strategy” with” industry sources [58]. Similarly, J. Drummond that would “provide the data needed to refute ill- (BAT Manager of Leaf Department) wrote to Ely: considered WHO policies damaging to the interests of developing countries” [30] (p. 1). Documents suggest a I am somewhat surprised at the direction Dr. Fraser’s key part of this strategy was the creation by TTCs of the investigations have taken in Thailand….Fraser has International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA) in made certain suggestions as to future actions. I would 1984. While the ITGA publicly describes itself as a be very, very reluctant to support these….we are in a “non-profit organization…presenting the cause of mil- potential mine field and if we were to take up Fraser’s lions of tobacco farmers to the world” [50], documents suggestions without a full study of their wider show TTCs colluded through the ITGA to “‘front’…our implications….[59]. Third World lobby activities at the World Health Organisation, and gain support from nations hostile to Despite a FAO report containing data “very close multinational corporations” [51]. The ITGA would later totheonesquotedinmyReport”,Fraseragreedto play a central role in promoting industry-funded re- meet with Ely in November 1984 to discuss his search which downplayed responsibility for deforestation estimates of “the quantities of wood-fuel use in and countered findings from independent research. flue-curing” [60]. After this meeting, Fraser wrote: “I am very happy to take on board your comments “True causes of deforestation”: downplaying tobacco and the additional information which has come to industry responsibility light since submitting the report” [61] (p. 2). The Documents suggest that a second tactic of the industry “additional information” proved to be data from is to attribute deforestation to “many causes” [52] which local BAT companies [62] “for his consideration” are far more to blame than tobacco. Recognising the reporting far lower levels of woodfuel use [57]. limitations of “denial without documentation” [53], the industry then funded new research, disseminated It was agreed that this new data would be used, funded through front groups, to shape the policy debate. In or provided by the industry, with the methodology ap- 1984 Ely [54] commissioned Alistair Fraser, of the proved by BAT [63] including “field work” in case-study International Forest Sciences Consultancy (IFSC), to countries [64, 65] and “informal approaches to other to- study the impact of tobacco growing and curing on bacco curers” [61]. Despite this close industry’s involve- deforestation. Fraser’s draft report, The Ecological, Social ment, the study was described by Ely as an “independent and Economic Implications of the Use of Wood by the survey done on the use of wood fuel for curing tobacco Tobacco Industry [55], found the impact ranged from as compared with other fuel and indeed other uses of none in Argentina to “an important influence” in Malawi. wood based products” [66] (p. 2). The reported concluded that, “[i]n all the countries The revised report, entitled The use of wood by the studied, the forest resources have been depleted to such tobacco industry and the ecological implications, revised an extent that the annual cut of woodfuel appears to ex- downward the original finding that “the amount of wood ceed the growth in the forest, and forest destruction is tak- used in flue-curing around the world may be as high ing place, both, through obvious clearance and by the as…4.5 % of all woodfuel consumed,” to “less than 1 % more pernicious overcutting” [55] (p. 47). The study of all wood consumption” and “only 0.7 % of all fuel- recommended wood consumed” in the case study countries [52]. Fraser was invited to present these findings to an INFOTAB the tobacco industry assess the true economic cost meeting where the evidence was said to show the indus- of the fuel needed for flue-curing the tobacco, try was contributing to deforestation “to a very minor taking account of the opportunity cost of the land degree” [67] (p. 4). Attendees agreed to submit an article needed to grow woodfuel, and the foreign exchange to the Courier (published by the European Commission), implications of using fossil fuels, and develop local with copies to FAO and World Bank, based on these long-term strategies to ensure the most economic findings. Fraser was also to speak to Tanzanian officials long-term fuel supply. [55] (p. 47) as part of Hauser’s lobbying efforts. Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 6 of 12

The revised report proved especially useful following The tobacco industry does not use rain forests to cure publication of an 1989 article, “Tobacco: the burning tobacco and does not grow tobacco in rain forest issue” by the UN Department of Information. Douglas areas because the climate is not suitable. In other Wholey (consultancy firm Minster Agriculture) wrote to areas it is BAT policy not to clear forestry land. Only Ely describing it as “a very serious affair as the publica- land already cleared and being used for agriculture is tion is very widely circulated and unfortunately is considered for use [74] (p. 1). respected in development circles” [68]. In response, the ITGA published an editorial in its in-house journal, Over the next decade, frequent referral to Fraser’s Tobacco Forum, which stated: “independent study” [75] was made to dispel “woodfuel myths” [76] (p. 3), using “objective third party data” [77], A lot of nonsense is promulgated about the use and to draw proper attention to the “true causes of of wood by tobacco farmers. Typical of such deforestation” [78] (p. 28), namely “population growth, misinformation, an article published in the UN non-sustainable agricultural practices and lack of afford- Department of Information’s ‘Development Forum’… able alternative fuels” [79]. claimed that ‘perhaps one out of every eight trees By the early 1990s, non-industry funded research worldwide is used for curing tobacco’. The fact is that began to report alarming rates of deforestation in Kenya, the tobacco industry as a whole accounts for Tanzania and Uganda. Funded by the Panos Institute, significantly less than 1 % of all wood consumed in launched at the 1993 All Africa Conference on Tobacco the developing world, not all of which is used for and Health, and published in Tobacco Control, a case curing. The tobacco industry is only one of many study of two regions in Tanzania found tobacco “had industries which use wood as fuel [69] (p. 1). turned the area into an environmental disaster” [80] (p. 252). In Uganda’s West Nile region, which pro- Fraser also wrote to the Development Forum editor duces 80 % of the country’s tobacco, natural forest challenging the article’s claims: cover was reduced from 7225 to 3000 ha. Up to 130 kg of woodfuel was being used to cure 1 kg of In 1986 we were invited to carry out a totally tobacco [81]. In Kenya, indigenous trees were “severely independant [sic] survey of the use of wood by the reduced in numbers” from expanded tobacco growing tobacco industry….the tobacco industry accounts for [82] (p. 249). rather less than 1 % of all wood consumed in the These renewed concerns were initially dismissed as developing world, rather than the 12 % implied by the opportunism by public health advocates “seeking to take one tree in eight in your article. It does harm to the advantage of” the 1992 UN Conference on Environment credibility of the U.N. system when such articles are and Development (UNCED) [83] (p. 3). As new evi- published which do not indicate the sources of the dence emerged, however, the industry took a more information, and which are not based on the scientific strategic approach. The consultancy Agro-Tobacco data which is available [70] (p. 1–2). Services (ATS) was formed in 1992, with £426,000 from six tobacco companies (BAT, PM, RJ Reynolds, Sending a copy of Fraser’s letter to Wholey, Ely Rothmans International, Gallaher and Reemtsma), along wrote: “hope you will agree with me that it is a very with “international leaf dealers, state-controlled tobacco complete answer. However, in case it is not published manufacturers, and other tobacco interests” [84] (p. 12). we will have to take fresh steps to cope with the situ- Headed by ITGA Assistant Secretary General Martin ation” [71]. This included the ITGA inviting leaf Oldman, ATS’s role was to “develop and implement action growers to “place Tobacco Forum in appropriate plans for each of the ITGA member organizations, hands within your country. For example, with local develop new argumentation, and liaise with external newspapers/magazines, opinion-formers, relevant gov- allies” [85]. Ahead of the 1993 All Africa Conference, ernment officials” [72]. This was followed in 1990 by a briefing paper was developed “for placement before the ITGA publishing an atlas on leaf growing, To- and/or during the Conference”, aimed at “rebalancing bacco in the Developing World, “to convince First some misconceptions regarding tobacco and wood World governments and UN agencies that their anti- use” [86] (p. 1). To counter publication of Tobacco: tobacco campaigns are bad news for the developing The Smoke blows South by the Panos Institute [87], countries that grow tobacco” [73]. The atlas was up- updating the report on Uganda [88], Oldman pub- datedandre-issuedseveraltimesoverthenextdec- lished Developing Countries and Tobacco as “acritical ade. TTCs were, in turn, advised to use ITGA analysis” which “ITGA/Agro-Tobacco Services could publications to downplay industry responsibility. For usefully deploy 500 copies” [89] (p.1). The report de- BAT, for example, the advised model response was: scribed the principal author of the Panos report, John Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 7 of 12

Madeley, as “a well known anti-tobacco lobbyist presented as an “independent audit”, by Moi University [who] makes a wide range of very predictable claims “to demonstrate BAT Kenya’s contribution” [98] (p. 2). It against the tobacco industry.” In contrast, despite be- was not until the mid 1990s that hard questions about ing a longstanding ITGA employee, Oldman is de- the effectiveness of industry-led forestation projects were scribed as an “independent consultant specialising in raised. For example, Kweyuh observed that afforestation tobacco-attributable issues in the developing world” “largely failed to achieve the desired effect” [82] (p. 249). using “independently published sources” [89] (p. 4). In Tanzania, Waluye observed that “very few trees are planted annually compared to those cut down” [80] Forestation as “an important PR tool for marketing the (p.253). In 1993, the Panos Institute reported: Corporate Brand” A third key tactic of the tobacco industry, to counter In Kenya…BAT says that farmers can only become deforestation concerns, was involvement in, and even tobacco farmers if they agree to plant 1000 leadership of, forestation efforts (reforestation and affor- eucalyptus trees a year on their land. But there are estation). The industry rejected the “rash of stories con- problems. The average smallholder in Kenya has demning transnational tobacco company activities in less than 4 ha of land. If he or she plants tobacco, developing nations” [90] (p. 2), instead blaming lack of that might take up half a hectare and the trees a government action for deforestation: further hectare. Land for food and other purposes is squeezed….[A] former senior employee of BAT Where Third World governments have generally Kenya alleged: “the company is shouting about encouraged the development of tobacco, their forestry massive tree planting but this I’mafraidisnothing departments have often been slow to recognize the less than an outrageous attempt to veil the whole need for reforestation. Tobacco companies have, problem” [87] (p. 11). therefore, taken the initiative, encouraging farmers to plant trees either individually or on a cooperative To counter these criticisms, the ITGA showcased “18 basis, even providing free seedlings for both depleted countries running afforestation programmes PR [public forestland and new land [90] (p. 12–13). relations]” for BAT [99] (p. 1). BAT claimed it “helped to plant more trees than are used to cure the tobacco it This portrayal of the industry as responsible corporate buys….over 100 million surviving trees…forecast to in- citizen was supported by the initiation of forestation crease to 152 million trees by 1995” [100] (p. 2). More- projects in several countries including Nigeria [91], the over, “no farmer will be recruited to grow tobacco for Philippines [92], and Sri Lanka [93]. In the Dominican BAT unless he/she has satisfied the minimum re- Republic, PM’s “Institutional Reforestation Campaign” quirements for trees” [101]. The programmes would was featured on television, newspaper advertisements, “provide enough woodfuel for…contracted farmers to posters and t-shirts [94] (p. 38). In Brazil, BAT sub- be 26 % self sufficient” [100] (p. 2), rising to 53 % by sidiary Souza Cruz claimed to have replanted by 1984 1995 [99] (p.1) and 81.9 % by 2000 [102] (p. 25). In “much more than the total amount of wood needed this way, it was expected that BAT could use the for every crop….forests have been increasing instead claim of “close to a ‘carbon balance’ in its operations” as of diminishing” [95] (p. 2). The claimed success of “an important PR tool for marketing the Corporate Brand” BAT’s program in Kenya led the Tanzanian Permanent [102] (p. 4). Documents describe BAT making afforest- Representative to the UN in Geneva to request “human ation one of its “global flagship CSR programmes” in 1999 and financial resources…for an afforestation program” to- as “an area of frequent attacks against us by pressure wards “arresting or minimising the environmental degrad- groups” [103] (p. 4). An Afforestation Team was formed, ation that tobacco growing causes in developing working closely with the EarthWatch Institute as “amem- countries” [96] (p. 1). ber of the project team” [103] (p. 5). In 1999 BAT hosted Over the next decade, there was little scrutiny and no Afforestation Week in Uganda [104], and was keen to independent research to counter industry forestation “exploit our good efforts” by sending “the head of claims. One exception was a 1984 report by Madeley ‘Earthwatch’ totakealook” [105] (p. 1). Following a which argued that BAT’s reforestation plans in Kenya similar visit to Ghana, EarthWatch African Programme were “going very badly”. He reported that land growing Manager Lucy Beresford-Stooke wrote, “BAT appear to be tobacco was five times more than for trees. Around 12 actively facing environmental issues” [106] (p.2). million trees were cut annually for curing, causing Internally, however, BAT staff expressed concerns. desertification, displacement of food crops and woodfuel While the ITGA publicly stated that “the wood deficit shortages [44] (p.2). Into this vacuum BAT “began to [in Zimbabwe] is not so serious and alternative fuels are make use of” a commissioned study [97], again available” [107], Parirewa of BAT Zimbabwe admitted, Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 8 of 12

Sadly, the survival rate of the trees is almost zero as cultivation every season, because virgin land offers attention given to the woodlots is poor. Nonetheless, fewer soil-borne diseases and higher yields, with 25 % British American Tobacco Zimbabwe must be seen to using the same plot for two consecutive seasons be concerned about the depletion of forests although [115]. WHO concluded that “[r]eforestation pro- it has no direct link with tobacco growers who are grammes cosponsored and promoted by the tobacco considered the main “culprits’ in the cutting down of industry are not enough to reverse the damage” [113] trees [108] (p.1). (p. 2). Kweyuh argued that the “Industry should be forced to withdraw all phony statistics and research In Pakistan and Nigeria, it was acknowledged that ef- and to finance state and NGO initiatives to address forts “will fall well short of the afforestation policy target the deforestation” [116]. of self-sufficiency in wood-fuel usage by 2000”, and there With this accumulating evidence, TTCs began to was “need to introduce urgent corrective action” [102] publicly acknowledged the severity of the problem. A (p. 4). In 2001 preservation of natural forests became 2012 BAT-commissioned review concluded that defor- part of its “Sustainable agriculture and farmer liveli- estation “may be the single most negative impact of hoods” initiative and Biodiversity Partnership with the tobacco cultivation on the environment” [117] (p. 6). Earthwatch Institute, Fauna & Flora International, the The report found that the “‘continuous reduction’ of Tropical Biology Association [109]. Since the late 1990s, wood use in curing green leaf tobacco, as claimed in non industry-funded studies confirmed the alarming industry commissioned works such as those of Fraser situation [110]. A 1999 study by University of Düsseldorf [52] and Campbell [75], can very likely not be sub- geographer Helmut Geist found the industry caused stantiated given the results of the study by Geist 4.6 % of deforestation in developing countries and 12 % et al. [111]” [117] (p. 12). Today BAT admits that in southern Africa [8, 111]. Geist’s findings were widely “[l]oss of natural forests is one of the most significant cited including in the report Golden Leaf, Barren environmental impacts linked to tobacco growing, Harvest: due to wood often being used as a fuel in curing pro- cesses” [118]. Similarly PM reports that “tobacco [D]espite government recommendations to have farming has contributed to extensive depletion of 10 % of farm land planted with trees, studies by [Malawi’s]…trees due to the use of large quantities of the Extension Service of Malawi found that 80 % of wood in traditional tobacco curing process” [119]. estate farmers had failed to follow this advice. In Japan Tobacco International (JTI) recognises: Tanzania’s Southern Songea highlands, where most tobacco is fire-cured, Geist found that a mere [I]n Malawi, forest cover has more than halved over 1.4 % of the overall farmland of tobacco growers the last four decades, creating fears about the was planted with trees, as opposed to the officially sustainability of wood as a resource. This has mandated 20 % [112] (p. 26). significant consequences for the lifestyles and livelihoods of the farmers JTI works with. Without Samson Mwita Marwa, a Kenyan tobacco farmer and a ready supply of wood they are less able to former Member of Parliament, observed: “BAT claims to sustain their way of living and produce the high be engaged in reforestation programmes. I have yet to volume of quality tobacco that both they and JTI see a single mature tree that BAT has planted in Kuria need [120]. district….the rate of deforestation is far too fast to be equal to the rate of reforestation” [113] (p. 2). Bates Alliance One International, a leaf merchant in more et al. reported that than 45 countries, notes: “The lush forests that once spread across Kenya’s landscape are now vanishing In Uganda, BAT has been planting the fast growing at an alarming rate. While environmental impacts eucalyptus trees to replace depleted indigenous species of deforestation border upon dismal, the lack of like the shea butter tree whose oil is used in cooking in trees also threatens the entire country with drought” many parts of Northern Uganda. The eucalyptus is an [121]. anti-social thirsty tree. Its fast growth rate places a great demand on the soil water and nutrients, while its fallen Discussion leaves contain chemicals that discourage the growth of To date, analyses of efforts by the tobacco industry to other vegetation near the tree [114] (p. 3). influence research and policy have been largely focused on public health issues. We demonstrate in this paper Sauer and Abdallah found 69 % of tobacco farmers in that tobacco industry efforts to influence public policy the Urambo District, Tanzania clear new woodlands for extend to the environment sector. Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 9 of 12

The above findings suggest that the tobacco industry erode soils and contribute to deforestation [25] (p. sought to shape understanding of the deforestation 262). problem, caused by tobacco farming and curing, from the 1970s to early 2000s centred on claims of economic These findings have important implications for under- benefits [122], alternative causes of tobacco-related dis- standing the role of the tobacco industry in environmen- eases [123]; and responsible behaviour towards con- tal policy. First, there is a need to more fully measure sumers and communities [124]. These arguments were the diverse environmental consequences of the tobacco advanced through lobbying at the national and inter- industry over time. Tobacco-attributable deforestation national levels, collusion through the use of front groups warrants the urgent collection of systematic data across [125], and industry commissioned research by paid con- time and place by independent scientists. Other environ- sultants [16, 126]. These are all well-documented tactics, mental impacts include agrochemical pollution [128], used by the industry to prevent or delay regulation on loss of biodiversity [129], air pollution [130] and waste other tobacco control issues, although to date analysed toxicity [131]. The limited and fragmented nature of to a limited extent in relation to environmental issues. available data since the 1980s enables the industry to The effectiveness of efforts to downplay tobacco- continue to downplay its environmental impacts and attributable deforestation, against claims of economic offer industry-serving solutions. benefits to farmers and LMIC governments, was enabled Second, the above findings suggest that the involvement by the latter’s contractual dependence on global markets of some environmental scientists and groups played an controlled by large leaf processing and manufacturing important role in the industry’s tactics, by lending support oligopolies. The blame placed on local communities and to perceptions that industry-commissioned research and national governments shifted attention away from their policy initiatives are scientifically-based and credible. As subsistence-level dependence, “steered overproduction”, described by McDaniel and Malone, it is important that and lack of alternative fuel sources and livelihoods. The environmental groups be aware of how they provide claims that industry-led forestation initiatives effectively legitimacy and help redeem the industry’s negative addressed the problem left primary responsibility to public reputation [132]. These links with environmen- smallholder farmers incapable of growing sufficient trees tal groups can also provide an entrée for the tobacco to compensate for the scale of deforestation. This shaping industry into civil society and CSR, thus avoiding of the deforestation issue was underpinned by commis- direct responsibility for the environmental conse- sioned research whose findings were altered to suit indus- quences of the industry. try interests. From the 1970s onwards, this “independent Third, environmental policy research has understand- research” was disseminated to senior UN and government ably given growing attention to the political power of officials by front groups and paid consultants. The overall the business sector [133], focusing on industries such as aim, as described by PM, was “to manage and mitigate pu- oil and gas [134] and agrochemicals [135]. Scrutiny of nitive regulatory measures, enhance the corporate image, the tobacco industry has traditionally come from the [and] influence public policy” [127]. public health community. These findings demonstrate The lack of effective action to address tobacco- the need for the environmental community to include attributable deforestation, and indeed prevent escalation the tobacco industry in efforts to improve the transpar- of the problem [8, 115], can be understood in this con- ency and accountability of corporations. text. Along with insufficient national responses, inter- national policies encouraged the expansion of global leaf Conclusions production. World Bank financing supported tobacco Deforestation remains a serious global environmental growing until 1991. Trade agreements, such as the challenge. Available evidence suggests tobacco farming Cotonou Agreement of 2000 between the European and curing, to produce a product that kills 6 million Union and LMICs, created favourable terms for tobacco people annually, accounts for 4 % of deforestation glo- exports. As Otanez et al. explain, bally, and 18–30 % in some LMICs. There have been limited efforts to date to address tobacco-attributable The trade policies that reflect the interests deforestation as a problem, led by CSR initiatives by the of developed countries and corporations in the industry. The findings of this paper suggest that this is current global economic system contribute to due, in part, to the tobacco industry shaping under- poverty in Malawi and other developing standing of the deforestation problem, and potential so- countries because these countries produce lutions to address it, in ways that sustain the interests of commodities for export markets instead of food the industry. There is an urgent need for independent for their own consumption, and depend on costly measurement and monitoring of the problem, particularly agricultural chemicals that pollute water supplies, in high production LMICs, and a range of policy measures Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 10 of 12

which address the dependency of tobacco farmers on 2. FAO. State of the World’s Forests. Rome: FAO; 2012. powerful global leaf processors and manufacturers. 3. Johnson T. Deforestation and Greenhouse-Gas emissions. New York: Council on Foreign Relations; 2009. 4. Geist H, Lambin E. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of Endnote tropical deforestation. Bioscience. 2002;52(2):143–50. 1For a list of participants see BAT (1984). Participants 5. Lecours N, Almeida G, Abdallah J, Novotny T. Environmental health impacts ’ ” of tobacco farming: a review of the literature. Tob Control. 2012;21(2):191–6. at Mr. Hausers Reception. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ 6. Jacobs R, et al. The supply-side effects of tobacco control policies. In: Jha P, tid/cfc44a99/pdf Chaloupka F, editors. Tobacco control in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. Abbreviations 7. FAO. Projection of tobacco production, consumption and trade for the year ATS: Agro-Tobacco Services; BAT: British American Tobacco; CSR: Corporate 2010. Rome: FAO; 2003. social responsibility; EIU: Economic Intelligence Unit; FAO: Food and 8. Geist H. Global assessment of deforestation related to tobacco farming. Tob Agriculture Organization; GDP: Gross domestic product; ICOSI: International Control. 1999;8:18–28. Committee on Tobacco Issues; IFSC: International Forest Sciences 9. Geist H, Kapito J, Otañez M. The Tobacco Industry in Malawi: a globalized Consultancy; IMF: International Monetary Fund; INFOTAB: International driver of local land change. In: Jepson W, Millington A, editors. Land change Tobacco Information Centre; ITGA: International Tobacco Growers modifications in the developing world. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 251–68. Association; JTI: Japan Tobacco International; LMIC: Low and middle income 10. FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2010. Rome: FAO; 2010. country; PMI: Philip Morris International; TAC: Tobacco Advisory Council; 11. Otanez M. Tobacco Related Deforestation in Malawi. n.d. https://archive.org/ TTC: Transnational tobacco company; UNCED: UN Conference on details/MartyOtanezTobaccoRelatedDeforestationinMalawi. Environment and Development; WHO: World Health Organization 12. Efroyman D. FitzGerald S. Tobacco and Poverty: observations from India and Bangladesh. Canada: Path Canada; 2003. Acknowledgements 13. BAT. Natural resources. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.bat.com/group/ Not applicable. sites/UK__9D9KCY.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9QEFMY. 14. PMI. Enhancing Rural Livelihoods, Malawi. 2015. Retrieved from http://www. Funding pmi.com/eng/sustainability/good_agricultural_practices/pages/ This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, US National environmental_sustainability.aspx. Institutes of Health, Grant No. R01-CA091021, and the Cigarette Butt Pollution 15. Imperial Tobacco. Forestry preservation. 2015. Retrieved from http://www. Project funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, State of imperialbrandsplc.com/Responsibility/Respecting-natural-resources. California. The authors are solely responsible for the contents of this paper. 16. Bero L. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep. 2005;120(2):200–8. Availability of data and materials 17. Goodman J. Tobacco in history: the cultures of dependence. London: Not applicable. Routledge; 2005. 18. WHO. Economically sustainable alternatives to tobacco growing, Report of Authors’ contributions the Working Group. Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework KL and TN conceived the research. KL collected and analysed the data, and Convention on Tobacco Control, 5th Session, Seoul, 17 July 2012. wrote and revised the paper. NB conducted targeted searches and drafted 19. Cairney P, Studlar D, Mamudu H. Global tobacco control: power, policy, sections of the paper. TN and NB commented on drafts of the paper. All governance and transfer. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012. authors read and approved the final manuscript. 20. World Lung Foundation. The tobacco atlas. Washington: World Lung This research was undertaken as part of Dr. Novotny's previous academic Foundation; 2015. work at San Diego State University and does not represent his current US 21. van Donge J. Disordering the Market: the Liberalisation of Burley Tobacco in government position or US government policy. Malawi in the 1990s. J South Afr Stud. 2002;28(1):89–115. 22. FAO. Issues in the global tobacco economy: selected case studies. Rome: Authors’ information FAO; 2003. Kelley Lee is Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Global Health Governance in 23. Saloojee Y. Tobacco in Africa: more than a health threat. In: Boyle P, Gray N, the Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University. Natalia Carrillo Botero Henningfield J, Seffrin J, Zatonski W, editors. Tobacco and public health: is an anthropologist specializing in Latin American Studies, and Research science and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 267–77. Fellow in the Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Canada. 24. Jaffee S. Malawi’s tobacco sector. Washington: World Bank African Region Thomas Novotny is Emeritus Professor of Global Health in the Division of Working Paper Series No. 55; 2003. Epidemiology and Biostatistics, San Diego State University. 25. Otañez M, Mamudu H, Glantz S. Global leaf companies control the tobacco market in Malawi. Tob Control. 2007;16(4):261–9. Competing interests 26. Mangora M. Shifting cultivation, wood use and deforestation attributes The authors declare that they have no competing interest. of tobacco farming in Urambo District, Tanzania. Curr Res J Soc Sc. 2012;4(2):135–40. Consent for publication 27. WHO. Controlling the Smoking Epidemic. Report of the WHO Expert Not applicable. Committee on Smoking Control, Geneva, 1979. 28. Lamb R. Save the rain forests. Bulletin of the IUCN. 1980;11(5):17–32. Ethics approval and consent to participate 29. Muller M. Tobacco in the Third World: tomorrow’s epidemic? London: War Not applicable. on Want; 1976. 30. BAT. BAT Industries External Affairs Committee: Follow Up to the EIU Study Author details on Tobacco in the Developing World. nd. Retrieved from http://legacy. 1Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall, 8888 library.ucsf.edu/tid/iwh18a99/pdf University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada. 2Division of Epidemiology 31. Mostyn J. Economist intelligence unit study: leaf tobacco - its contribution and Biostatistics, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. to the economic and social development of the third world. 1980. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sbx50a99/pdf. Received: 9 October 2015 Accepted: 23 August 2016 32. Hargrove G. Report and recommendations to the executive committee on threats to the industry in the third or developing world. 1980. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gla29d00/pdf. References 33. Lockhart C. Economist intelligence unit study: “Leaf Tobacco - Its Contribution to 1. World Wildlife Fund. Global Network Position: Deforestation-free production the Economic and Social Development of the Third World”.March6[online]. and finance, Position Paper. 2015. 1980. Available online at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/psp94a99/pdf. Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 11 of 12

34. Doyle J. Economist intelligence unit study, “Leaf Tobacco - Its Contribution 66. Ely R. INFOTAB Wood Fuel Survey [Letter to Robin Gilderdale]. 1985. to the Economic and Social Development of the Third World, International Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dyb44a99/pdf. Committee on Smoking Issues. 1980. Retrieved from http://legacy.library. 67. INFOTAB. Minutes of an Industry Meeting held at the INFOTAB Secretariat - ucsf.edu/tid/yha56e00/pdf. Brussels. 1986. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rjc44a99/pdf. 35. Hill and Knowlton. Leaf tobacco: its contribution to the Economic and 68. Wholey D. Anti-Tobacco Article in Development Forum. 1989. Retrieved Social Development of the Third World. nd. Retrieved from http://legacy. from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wxh18a99/pdf. library.ucsf.edu/tid/zdc44a99/pdf. 69. ITGA. Tobacco Forum - RIO Date for UN Environment Conference. 1991. 36. BAT. The Role of Tobacco and Comparable Cash Crops in Rural Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gqe28a99/pdf. Development in Selected Low Income Countries. 1983. Retrieved from 70. Fraser A. [Letter to Editor]. 1989. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ujk50a99/pdf. edu/tid/mgo71a99/pdf. 37. Ely R. File Note. 1983. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ 71. Ely R. [Letter to D. Wholey]. 1989. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. bhc44a99/pdf. 38. Maxwell H. Draft speech for Hamish Maxwell, Marketing Meeting. 1983. edu/tid/vxh18a99/pdf. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nyz24e00/pdf. 72. Oldman M. Tobacco Forum. 1991. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. 39. Mercer P. Basic presentation to Minister of Agriculture. Imperial Tobacco. edu/tid/ooz69b00/pdf. 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dac44a99/pdf. 73. King T. ITGA Atlas. 1990. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ 40. Ely R. Hauser Project. 1983. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ ifq52f00/pdf. hgc44a99/pdf. 74. BAT. Question and answer brief. nd. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. 41. BAT. Transcript regarding contributions to the UN. nd. Retrieved from edu/tid/ydh27b00/pdf. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dfc44a99/pdf. 75. Campbell J. Tobacco and the environment: the continuous reduction of 42. BAT. Tobacco: Creating Wealth in the Developing World. nd. Retrieved from worldwide energy source use for green leaf curing. Beitr Tabakforsch Int. – http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zjk50a99/pdf. 1995;16(3):107 17. 43. RJR. Report on Fifth World Conference on Smoking and Health. 1983. 76. Johnson A. The use of woodfuel for curing tobacco. 1997. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/puq59d00. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yzq42c00/pdf. 44. Madeley J. Kenya’s trees go up in smoke - for smokers. International 77. Ely R. Wood fuel study. 1987. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ Agricultural Development. 1984. Available online at, http://legacy.library.ucsf. tid/laj51a99/pdf. edu/tid/ygq87a99/pdf. 78. PMI. Corporate affairs presentation. 1991. Retrieved from http://legacy. 45. Chapman S. Tobacco and deforestation in the developing world. Tob library.ucsf.edu/tid/zxh42e00/pdf. Control. 1993;3(3):191–3. 79. Bacon D. [Facsimile to Martin Riordan]. 1995. Retrieved from http://legacy. 46. Ely R, Leach M. Winnipeg, summary of recommendations. BAT. 1983. Retrieved library.ucsf.edu/tid/ykl43a99. from https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=hkxf0209. 80. Waluye J. Environmental impact of tobacco growing in Tabora/Urambo, 47. Ely R. Notes on Visit to Rome on 6th and 7th March 1986, with Niki Hauser. Tanzania. Tob Control. 1994;3(3):252–4. 10 March 1986. 1986. Retrieved from https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf. 81. Muwanga-Bayego H. Tobacco growing in Uganda: the environment and edu/tobacco/docs/#id=jgjj0201. women pay the price. Tob Control. 1994;3(3):255–6. 48. McInerney J. [Letter to Robert Ely]. 1983. Retrieved from http://legacy.library. 82. Kweyuh P. Tobacco expansion in Kenya - the socio-ecological losses. Tob ucsf.edu/tid/tec44a99. Control. 1994;3(3):248–51. 49. Ely R. [Letter to J. McInerney]. 1983. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. 83. BAT. The Agro-Tobacco Programme. 1991. Retrieved from http://legacy. edu/tid/oec44a99/pdf. library.ucsf.edu/tid/ghk47a99/pdf. 50. ITGA. Who we are and what we do. 2015. Retrieved from www.tobaccoleaf.org/. 84. Oldman M. Agro-tobacco services, proposed plan. 1991. Retrieved from 51. Bloxcidge J. International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA). Infotab. 1988. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eqe18a99/pdf. Retrieved from https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/ 85. Oldman M. Agro-tobacco services. 1991. Retrieved from https:// #id=pxxh0203. industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=lych0196. 52. International Forest Science Consultancy. The use of wood by the tobacco 86. Oldman M. Activity Report July 1993. 1993. Retrieved from http://legacy. industry and the ecological implications. 1986. Retrieved from http://legacy. library.ucsf.edu/tid/gne18a99/pdf. library.ucsf.edu/tid/mjk50a99/pdf. 87. Panos Institute. Tobacco: the smoke blows South. London: Panos 53. Kloepfer W. [Letter to B. Simpson]. 1983. Retrieved from http://legacy.library. Institute; 1994. ucsf.edu/tid/foo29b00/pdf. 88. Aliro O. Uganda: paying the price of growing tobacco. London: Panos 54. Ely R. [Letter to A. Fraser]. 1984b. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. Institute; 1993. edu/tid/cac44a99/pdf. 89. Oldman M. [Letter to S. Opukah]. 1995. Retrieved from http://legacy.library. 55. Fraser A. The Ecological, Social and Economic Implication of the Use of ucsf.edu/tid/hwe17a99/pdf. Wood by the Tobacco Industries, International Forest Science Consultancy. 90. Institute T. Tobacco in the developing nations. 1980. Retrieved from http:// 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dzo31a99/pdf. legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/omf44b00/pdf. 56. Fraser A. [Letter to R. Ely]. 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ 91. Cullman H. Partners in progress: a report on Philip Morris in the developing tid/azo31a99/pdf. countries. 1977. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ksk68e00. 57. Ely R. Afforestation study. 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ 92. Tobacco Institute. Rails raise domestic leaf rate. 1979. Retrieved from http:// tid/wzb44a99/pdf. legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qri30g00/pdf. 58. Taylor R. Infotab - Thailand. 1985. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. edu/tid/blc44a99/pdf. 93. Ceylon Tobacco Company Limited. Serving the community. 1980. Retrieved 59. Drummond P. Wood fuel survey. 1985. Retrieved from http://legacy.library. from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xtn26a99/pdf. ucsf.edu/tid/kyb44a99/pdf. 94. Bowling JC. Corporate affairs status reports. 1983. Retrieved from http:// 60. Fraser A. [Letter to R. Taylor]. 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pep02a00/pdf. edu/tid/vzb44a99/pdf. 95. Jungbluth G. A vital part of Brazil’s tobacco program: reforestation, 61. Fraser A. [Letter to R. Ely]. 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ Tobacco International. 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ tid/tzb44a99/pdf. tid/hii47a99/pdf. 62. Cooper D. [Letter to Alistair Fraser]. 1984. Retrieved from http://legacy. 96. Chagula WK. [Letter to Bernhard Hauser]. 1985. Retrieved from http://legacy. library.ucsf.edu/tid/yzb44a99/pdf. library.ucsf.edu/tid/uxb44a99/pdf. 63. Fraser A. [Letter to R. Ely]. 1985. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ 97. Agriconsult. The economic impact of the tobacco industry in Kenya. tid/jxb44a99/pdf. Nairobi: Moi University; 1991. 64. Ely R. [Telegram to Peter Hazel on Zimbabwe]. 1984. Retrieved from http:// 98. Opukah S. Commonwealth Institute Conference on Kenya. 1993. Retrieved legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xzb44a99/pdf. from https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ttjf0194. 65. Ely R. [Telegram to Mr. Siqueira on Brazil]. 1985. Retrieved from http:// 99. BAT. BAT Industries Afforestation and Woodfuel Survey 1994. 1994. legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vxb44a99/pdf. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/knn63a99/pdf. Lee et al. Globalization and Health (2016) 12:55 Page 12 of 12

100. Walder D. HEA advertisements. 1993. Retrieved from http://legacy.library. 130. McIntosh N, Clark N, Howatt W. Reducing tobacco smoke in the environment ucsf.edu/tid/gbu30a99/pdf. of the child with asthma: a cotinine-assisted, minimal-contact intervention. 101. BAT. Deforestation. nd. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ J Asthma. 1994;31(6):453–62. ufd51a99/pdf. 131. Slaughter E, Gersberg R, Watanabe K, Rudolph J, Stransky C, Novotny T. 102. Luke J, Viassenbroeck R. British-American tobacco: environmental, health & Toxicity of cigarette butts, and their chemical components, to marine and safety report 1999. 1999. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ freshwater fish. Tob Control. 2011;20(S1):i25–9. mli23a99/pdf. 132. McDaniel P, Malone R. British American Tobacco’s partnership with 103. Opukah S. Thoughts on Global CSR Programmes. 1999b. Retrieved from Earthwatch Europe and its implications for public health. Glob Public http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vak23a99/pdf. Health. 2011;7(1):1–15. 104. Kiberu J. Afforestation week. 1999. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf. 133. Kamieniecki S. Corporate America and environmental policy: how often edu/tid/ztj23a99/pdf. does business get its way? Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2006. 105. Gretton K. Visit to Arua. 1999. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ 134. Levy D, Egan D. Capital contests: national and transnational channels of tid/nuj23a99/pdf. corporate influence on the climate change negotiations. Politics and 106. Beresford-Stooke L. [Letter to Shabanji Opukah]. 2000. Retrieved from http:// Society. 1998;26(3):337–61. legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/swk24a99/pdf. 135. Clapp J, Fuchs D, editors. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. 107. ITGA. Tobacco Growers - Issues Papers. 1996. Retrieved from http://legacy. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009. library.ucsf.edu/tid/aqc04a99/pdf. 108. Parirewa P. Corporate social responsibility. 1999. Retrieved from http:// legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hbk23a99/pdf. 109. BAT Biodiversity Partnership. Who we are. 2015. Retrieved from http://www. batbiodiversity.org/groupms/sites/BAT_8A7ED8.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/ DO8A9FEU?opendocument. 110. Madeley J. British American Tobacco: the smokescreen. In: Madeley J, editor. Hungry for Power. London: UK Food Group; 1999. 111. Geist H, Chang K, Eteges V, Abdallah J. Tobacco growers at the cross-roads: towards a comparison of diversification and ecosystem impacts. Land Use Policy. 2009;26(4):1066–79. 112. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Golden Leaf, Barren Harvest. Washington: Campaign for Tobacco Free Kiids; 1999. 113. WHO. Tobacco increases the poverty of countries. 2004. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/tobacco/communications/events/wntd/2004/en/ factsnations_en.pdf. 114. Bates C, Karugaba P, Kozak J, Kralikova E, Szilagyi T. Alliance bulletin. 2002. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bcm10c00/pdf. 115. Sauer J, Abdallah J. Forest diversity, tobacco production and resource management in Tanzania. Forest Policy Econ. 2007;9:421–39. 116. Kweyuh P. [Statement by Africa Tobacco Media Programme]. 2000. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/myb53a99/pdf. 117. Pain A, Hancock I, Eden-Green S, Everett B. Research and Evidence Collection on Issues Related to Articles 17 and 18 of the Framework Convention on. 2012. 118. BAT. Natural Resources. Ensuring long-term agricultural resources. nd. Retrieved from http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__9d9kcy.nsf/ vwPagesWebLive/DO9QEFMY?opendocument. 119. PMI. Environmental Sustainability. nd. Retrieved from http://www.pmi.com/ eng/sustainability/good_agricultural_practices/pages/environmental_ sustainability.aspx. 120. JTI. A growing reforestation program. nd. Retrieved from http://www.jti. com/in-focus/growing-reforestation-program/. 121. Sutton Anders R. Sweet Solution, Tobacco Reporter. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.tobaccoreporter.com/tag/reforestation/. 122. Kmietowicz Z. Tobacco company claims that smokers help the economy. BMJ. 2001;323(7305):126. 123. Petticrew M, Lee K. The ‘Father of Stress” meets “Big Tobacco”: Hans Selye and the tobacco industry”. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(3):411–18. 124. Hirschhorn N. Corporate social responsibility and the tobacco industry: hope or hype? Tob Control. 2004;13(4):447–53. 125. Apollonio D, Bero L. The Creation of Industry Front Groups: the Tobacco Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central Industry and “get government off our back”.AmJPublicHealth. and we will help you at every step: 2007;97(3):419–27. 126. Schick S, Glantz S. Old ways, new means: tobacco industry funding of • We accept pre-submission inquiries academic and private sector scientists since the master settlement • Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal agreement. Tob Control. 2007;16(3):157–64. • We provide round the clock customer support 127. PM. Executive Summary of Paper on PM Environmental Giving. 1994. Retrieved from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rrd32c00/pdf. • Convenient online submission 128. Damalas C, Georgiou E, Theodorou M. Pesticide use and safety practices • Thorough peer review among Greek tobacco farmers: a survey. Int J Environ Health Res. • Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services 2006;16(5):339–48. 129. Tobin R, Knausenberger W. Dilemmas of development: burley tobacco, • Maximum visibility for your research the environment and economic growth in Malawi. J South Afr Stud. 1998;24(2):405–24. Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit